1. Sharon Kerr
complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Daily
Record breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) and Clause 2 (Privacy) of the Editors’ Code
of Practice in an article headlined “Cement fetishist slashed in flat torture
ordeal”, published on 9 February 2017.

2. The article was
a report of a court case in which a defendant had the same name as the
complainant, and the article also included a picture of the complainant.

3. The complainant
said that she had been misidentified. She said that she was not involved in the
incident, that she had not faced any court proceedings in relation to it, and
that her photograph had been published in error.

4. The newspaper
apologised for the distress caused to the complainant and said that the
photograph had been taken from her Facebook profile in error. The newspaper
said that it had checked with the reporter, who was present during the court
proceedings, that this was the correct individual. It said that the reporter
had made a genuine mistake in confirming the individual’s identity however
after receiving the complaint, it deleted the image from its records and marked
their cuttings library with a warning.

Relevant Code Provisions

5. Clause 1
(Accuracy)

(i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not
supported by the text.

(ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where
appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence
should be as required by the regulator.

(iii) A fair opportunity to reply to significant
inaccuracies should be given, when reasonably called for.

Clause 2 (Privacy)

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any
individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals, without
their consent, in public or private places where there is a reasonable
expectation of privacy.

Mediated outcome

6. The complaint
was not resolved through direct correspondence between the parties. IPSO
therefore began an investigation into the matter.

7. Following IPSO’s
intervention the matter was settled privately between the parties.

8. As the complaint
was successfully resolved, the Complaints Committee did not make a
determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.